First of Its Kind Survey Shows Vaccinated Children Get Sicker

The carefully designed cross-sectional survey focused on responses from 415 mothers of 666 homeschooled children between the ages of six and twelve.

Children Who Receive Fewer Vaccinations are Less Likely to Develop Chronic Illnesses

The scientific publication Journal of Translational Sciencehas published one of the first surveys to formally assess the longer-term health outcomes associated with the United States routine childhood vaccination program. Primarily authored by Dr. Anthony R. Mawson (a public health epidemiologist with an extensive and proven track record in children’s health research), the study concluded that vaccinated children were much more likely to have been diagnosed with a chronic illness (including allergies and learning disabilities) when compared to unvaccinated children. In addition, 7.5 percent of the 666 children in the study had been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD).

The carefully designed cross-sectional survey focused on responses from 415 mothers of 666 homeschooled children between the ages of six and twelve. The study was divided into three subgroups—fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated—each comprising roughly one-third of the sample. Participants were asked about physician diagnoses of 40 acute and chronic illnesses. While children in the vaccinated group were significantly less likely than unvaccinated children to be reported as having had chickenpox or pertussis, there were no meaningful differences between the groups for other diseases targeted by vaccines. Additionally, vaccinated children were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with middle ear infections and pneumonia.

The study revealed five factors significantly associated with NDDs: vaccination, male gender, adverse environment, maternal use of antibiotics during pregnancy, and preterm birth. A logistic regression revealed that the combination of vaccination and preterm birth was associated with a 6.6-fold increase in odds of NDD. Another published paper revealed similar findings, but with an even higher 14.5-fold increase in odds when compared to a term birth without vaccination. These results suggest that the accepted practice of giving preterm infants the same schedule of vaccines as term infants should be reconsidered.

Over the past few decades, the U.S. pediatric vaccine schedule has increased from just 3 vaccines to over 50 doses of 15 vaccines. The schedule no longer includes only life threatening diseases, but also covers non-deadly diseases in an attempt to minimize future economic costs (such as prolonged absences from school or work). These vaccination increases have coincided with a rise in prevalence of dangerous chronic illness and NDDs. While the design of the study means that the results cannot be used to prove causality, the author notes that “the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent ‘dose-response’ relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the conclusion that some aspect of the current vaccination program may be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.”

25 Responses to "First of Its Kind Survey Shows Vaccinated Children Get Sicker"

David friedman August 22, 2017 at 8:16 pm

I suppose the first comment was why is it taking this many years to finally do it meaningful study the only one that really matters and of course I’m comparing healthy people with sick people to healthyWho are unvaccinated will certainly appear more healthy than the sick ones who are vaccinated. This comes as no surprise our side in the same way that a study comparing wealthy people to poor people we conclude that the wealthy people have more money than the poor people. Instead of allowing the studyto be buried great idea for each of us to publicize it’s findings

Just reading the article above had me wondering. The exclusive use of home schooled children struck me as weird and somewhat self-selecting.

And then I googled science based medicine mawson. It appears that the “studies” have been retracted by the journal that published them. Journals don’t like retracting articles. A translation is this: We think that there is so much wrong with this paper that we don’t want to be associated with it.

The author spotted the same problem I did, home schooled kids are likely to have very different histories.

“Notice how Mawson claims that this is a cross-sectional study, when in reality it’s a survey targeting parents who homeschool, using them as a population of convenience. Of course, parents who choose to home school are not like your average parents. There are a lot of confounding factors that go along with home schooling, including the association between home schooling and antivaccine views. This association is very clear in the data, which show that 261 of the 666 subjects were unvaccinated.”

Finding that there might be major problems with this paper would take the editors here no longer than a few minutes. The Vaccine Reaction should leave the article up with a big notice at the top stating that this article has been retracted as the journals that published it have retracted it.

If anything, a population of home schooled children should be expected to be in better health than the rest of the population (less exposure to infections, etc) which would appear to make the findings stronger. As for journals retracting, a lot of that seems to happen when it comes to anything that is negative about vaccines.

My daughter was born in the late 1970’s and had all the required vaccines, which were a drop in the bucket compared to what is required now for children. She had dpt, mmr, and oral polio. However, she got ear and respiratory infections seems like on a monthly basis. She was very thin, and her lips were always dry and cracked. She slso seemed to have food allergies. She seemed to get past those things when she was about 7 and just before the doctor was ready to put tubes in her ears. I had a friend whose son was born about 10 years later and he was always sick. She had to miss so much work because he was not allowed in daycare when he was sick, naturally. I agree that vaccines contribute to such illness, but also, and more seriously, to developmental and learning disorders. My grandson now 10, is unvaccinated and has never had an ear or respiratory infection, thank God. However, we believe that the vitamin k shot may have caused him to have seizures or some kind of reaction after he was just born. He had the shakes and briefly stopped breathing, we were told, and was even given a chest x-ray to see if his lungs were ok. I shudder to think what he would be like if he had gotten the vaccines. Thank God my daughter started to think about it in time to opt out of consenting for him to have the hep b shot before leaving the hospital. We live in a time when people bury their heads in the sand and rely on the conclusions of those who gain monetarily by putting children at risk for illness and developmental/learning challenges. I cannot believe that vaccines are not responsible for childhood cancers. I just hope there will be more studies and that the medical field will be held accountable for this misery, and I hope and pray that people will be allowed to choose, based on education and being honestly informed about the vaccine risks.

Think of the mass immunization program as a filtration mechanism for elimination of Vaccine Reactors from future military service. Everyone in the military is forced to get vaccinated. Vaccine Reactors do not get the benefit of lifelong VA care. Before the military took control of the Childhood Immunization program in the US, VA hospitals were filled with soldiers injured by Jonas Salk’s flu vaccines. Now vaccine Vaccine Reactors are limited by law to face a military style Court – the No Juries Allowed Vaccine Claims Court – in order to recover for their injuries.

Physicians are prohibited from using advanced scientific diagnostic methods capable of identification of vaccine reactions which range from auto immune diseases to ALS. The only proof allowed to the Vaccine Reactor Claimants is restricted to a military version of epidemiology that by its fundamental definition cannot be relevant to individual reactions.

I agree 100% with the survey that the vaccinations are causing a serious health problem for the children. It is also happening in the vet world with the over vaccination of our pets too. Our country doesn’t care because money and control is at the bottom of the decisions being made. I find it sad and very dangerous.

Thank you reporting this study!! I am a mother of an 8 year old female child, I carried her full term without any problems during pregnancy. She was born at home and has never been vaccinated. She has been in a public school setting since the age of two, and with all her exposure to public illnesses, I have found her to be much healthier than her vaccinated pupils. I wanted to thank you for sharing what I already knew in my gut to be true.

Anybody who reads this study should know that it can’t be taken seriously at all and shame on everyone here for saying thank you for reporting this. 666 homes schooled children is not a “carefully cross sectional survey.” First, the sample size is not big enough. Secondly, they are all home schooled children which obviously is not anywhere close to being an accurate representative of the entire population of children. Lastly, they received their answers based upon the responses of the mothers. Were the mothers told up front that this was a study about vaccines and health? If so that would give the mothers of non-vaccinated children an incentive to not completely tell the truth about it. It really amazes me how many people who are anti-vaccine will accept anything to fit their worldview including garbage like this and also shame on this website for reporting this.

With that said, I do think an actual real study would prove that unvaccinated children are healthier and would help shed some light on this subject. However, that study would need to be a much bigger sample that include many different ethnic groups, geographic locations, be controlled for a variety of factors, and use actual medical data of the children and not just what their mothers say. I’m sure there could probably be some way to use blood testing too in order to check various things. The funny thing is if something like this was done it would actually enhance and make this argument more credible. So, I would suggest to everyone instead of trying to latch on to garbage like this to actually start using your time to get a real study done.

“Anybody who reads this study should know that it can’t be taken seriously at all and shame on everyone here for saying thank you for reporting this.”

So Bobby, you begin by humiliating the readers who are trying to find the scarce legitimate information on the longterm effects of vaccines. But you have nothing better to offer, other than your criticism.

“So, I would suggest to everyone instead of trying to latch on to garbage like this…”

You attempt to belittle and demean these researchers and their work. You’re here to cast doubt on the findings.

“…to actually start using your time to get a real study done.”

I suspect Bobby, that you know very well how much a study like that would cost, and you also know its never going to happen. But you throw it out like you’re one of us, so we won’t notice that you’re not.

Nice try Danny, but I’m going to be grateful for this information, and any other scientific evidence regarding the longterm effects of the possible and/or probable damage of vaccines.

“Bobby David”, if that is even his real name, sounds like a paid Pharma troll come out of his cave to do his job. Good boy, Bobby, good boy. You do your smear job well but the thing is, those who research the vaccine connection to sick children know how true it is. Save your saber rattling for bigger causes.

“Anybody who reads this study should know that it can’t be taken seriously at all and shame on everyone here for saying thank you for reporting this.”

So Bobby, you begin by humiliating the readers who are trying to find the scarce legitimate information on the longterm effects of vaccines. But you have nothing better to offer, only criticism.

“So, I would suggest to everyone instead of trying to latch on to garbage like this…”

You attempt to belittle and demean these researchers and their work. You’re here to cast doubt on their findings.

“…to actually start using your time to get a real study done.”

I suspect Bobby, that you know very well how much a study like that would cost, and you also know its never going to happen. But you throw it out like you’re one of us, so we won’t notice that you’re not.

Nice try Bobby, but I’m going to be grateful for this information, and any other scientific evidence regarding the longterm effects of the possible and/or probable damage of vaccines.

If you look at the state for which this study was conducted you’ll find that it was in Mississippi – one of the three states that do not allow for philosophical or religious exemptions from vaccines and where medical exemptions are very rarely allowed. This would account for why there was a focus on homeschooled children being included in this particular study. Homeschooling in MS = no requirement to vaccinate and MANY MS families choose to homeschool so they aren’t bullied into vaccinating. In light of that, it would also explain possibly why this study may have been retracted – maybe, just maybe those who conducted such a study in such a state were in someway threatened? Definitely a possibility as many healthcare professionals in MS who respect a parent’s choice not to vaccinate are bullied…

In today’s newsletter, we feature an article about two small but powerful studies. They apparently terrify the vaccine industry champions to such an extent that they will publish falsehoods to keep the studies out of the public eye. Dr. Anthony Mawson, author of “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 – 12 Year Old U.S. Children” and “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: A cross-sectional study of 6 – 12 year old vaccinated and unvaccinated children” has been the target of Retraction Watch, an online blog of the “Center for Scientific Integrity” which receives “generous” funding from The MacArthur Foundation to promote integrity in science.

This fake news blog, which we hope the foundation will disavow, has been used to target a 35-year career scientist and his research in order to derail publication of two papers that were peer reviewed and accepted on their merits. Retraction Watch falsely claimed that one of the studies had been retracted by another journal, when it had never been officially accepted. They compounded the falsehood by claiming the paper had been retracted a second time, when it had simply been temporarily removed pending a response from the author to the false allegation.

Celeste McGovern, a freelance journalist who has extensively covered the publication of these studies wrote to Retraction Watch asking for an explanation:

“The journal had neither formally accepted or retracted it. Clearly, there is a difference, as journals may decline to publish articles without finding fault in them but retraction is usually based upon some scientific mistake or misconduct in the science of the study that is measurable and objective and it is frequently a charge that has serious negative consequences on the careers of the scientists who published the study.Could you please direct me to the complaints about the study so that I can inform now my readers which now number in hundreds of thousands whether there is an honest mistake by the authors and where that is, or misconduct in reporting the truth of their data and what specifically that is?

If there is no such mistake or misconduct it would seem that reporting such would be itself a grave violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behaviour in professional scientific research and the pursuit of truth. Indeed, a mistake of this magnitude would be defined as scientific misconduct itself.”